PNoy paves the way to Bangsamoro Muslim Republic

BangsaMoro+ 

By FRANK A. HILARIO

MANILA: What’s in a name? 

That which we call a Moro by any other name would smell as sweet as Muslim. This is history repeating itself to teach us, Christians and Muslims.

Not too long ago, the Moros started hating their appellation and cried out to the world that they wanted to be called Muslims. “Moros” (singular, “Moro”) had a smell-bad history; it was the name the Spanish colonizers called the people of Islam in Southern Philippines, and they hated that, not only because the name reminded them of Spanish abuses, but also because Moros referred to the Moors, the medieval Muslims of Spain and, of course, medieval is medieval. 

Now that the Muslims in Mindanao have argued and agreed in the matter of creating a nation called BangsaMoro - literally, nation of Moros - this is proof to me that we should confront history and not simply reject it, even if it smells really bad. He who rejects history is bound to accept it. 

As a concept, BangsaMoro is a good beginning. The Moros want to build their nation in Southern Philippines - let them. Building your nation is writing its history the way you want it. The management genius Peter Drucker did say, “The best way to predict the future is to invent it.” The Moros in these islands have a future to invent. They have a right to invent that future the way they want it. They have a right to be wrong. 

Is the framework agreement bad? Never mind. As in creative writing, in building a nation, a good beginning is any beginning. Now the Moros have something to think about. Let them use their own creative thinking! As in creative writing, in building a nation, you work first on the chaos. Now the Moros have to write their own history working on their own disorder. Let them use their own creative writing! 

The whole idea is? Self-reliance. Autonomy is independence with rules, borders, limits. Self-determination is self-rule with restrictions. Self-government is sovereignty with responsibility and accountability. 

As a writer and thinker, I don’t care who the Moro leaders will be, but I care what ideals BangsaMoro will be run with. Automatically, The Four Freedoms will be invoked: freedom of speech & expression, freedom of worship, freedom from want, freedom from fear. But I have already contested such freedoms, and have instead proposed “The 4 Accesses of Democracy” (see my “The 4 Impractical Freedoms,” The Creattitudes Encyclopedia, 12 June 2007, blogspot.com): 

Access to the media, more than freedom of speech & expression – for both educated and uneducated. Access is everything. Otherwise, who can exercise their freedom of speech? Only those who have access to print, radio, TV, phone, or electronic media. 

Access to the Church, more than freedom of worship – for both public and private persons. Access to the highest moral standards is key. Otherwise, if you separate Church from State, you separate morality from living, separate values from work & play. 

Access to the supply, more than freedom from want – for both rich and poor. Access is of the essence. Otherwise, only those who are rich can enjoy food, clothing, shelter, medicine, water, electricity, transportation – the perks of abundance. 

Access to security, more than freedom from fear – for leaders and followers, employers and employees, employed and unemployed. Otherwise, those who feel secure are only those who can afford to pay for services under the law: education, justice, insurance, social security. 

Working on The 4 Accesses, the people of BangsaMoro have their work cut out for them. I’m sure they’ll do right by themselves. 

Now I’m jealous. I remember what is good for General Motors is good for America. Shamelessly borrowing from the Americans, I say what’s good for the Moros is good for the Philippines. So now I shall strongly push for the building of other bangsas within the Philippines applying modern ideas of sustainable development: 

BangsaCebu. Autonomous Cebu plus neighboring provinces. Let a modern Lapu-Lapu rise from among the people who is willful and a risk-taker such as in economic innovations. 

BangsaPalawan. Autonomous Palawan plus neighboring provinces. Let a new leadership develop its forests, soils and waters based on wise use concepts such as optimum sustainable yield. 

BangsaCentral. Autonomous Zambales plus Pangasinan, Tarlac, Nueva Ecija, Bulacan. Let a modern Princess Urduja lead in creating fertile mountains and valleys via climate-resilient agriculture. 

BangsaBenguet. Autonomous Apayao plus Benguet, Ifugao, Kalinga, Mt Province. Let a contemporary Macliing Dulag lead in improving on the ancient rice terraces. 

BangSamarLeyte. Autonomous Samar plus Leyte. Let a leader rise so that the Warays and Cebuanos fight for the good of each other. 

BangSaluyot. Autonomous Ilocos Norte plus Ilocos Sur, Abra, La Union. Let a modern Lam-ang lead the Ilocanos in building watersheds where dry soils stood before, and growing crops where none grew before. 

More. But why so many nations within the Philippines? Because so many bangsas will deconstruct Manila Imperialism, which has remained impregnable since the time of Manuel Luis Quezon. Down with Imperialism!

CROSSROADS
Guarded optimism

By Jonathan de la Cruz 

Of course, we are all for peace and development, especially in Mindanao. Considered the Land of Promise, Mindanao’s potentials have been stymied no end by decades old fighting on at least two fronts — the Muslim secessionist movement and the Communist led insurgency — and unabated politicking leaving the country’s second biggest island and the residents therein even more numb and cynical about prospects for the better. It is time these conflicts are finally resolved and the politicking kept to a minimum so Mindanao and for that matter the entire country can move on as one unified nation to achieve stability and progress for all.

Which is why we welcome this fresh initiative to bring about lasting peace in Southern Philippines specifically in Muslim Mindanao. But we should do so with eyes wide open and properly instructed by the lessons of the past. So many lives and properties have been lost over decades of fighting not to mention opportunities for advancement missed over the years. Even the new discussants, if we may call them that, on both sides of the negotiating table should by now be fully aware of the obstacles along this newly opend “road to peace at last.”

The country has been on this road before: Full of hope and better times ahead only for the process to be waylaid beyond repair leading to armed hostilities, lives lost, people displaced and communities in disarray. We should not and cannot afford to let our people go through the same traumatic experience all over again.

A situation of suspended animation, a kind of “no peace, no war” environment such as what P-Noy claims the “failed experiment” that we have now may, in fact, be better for many people than to be ushered into another roller-coaster ride of unfulfilled expectations. But since the administration has brought us to this pass we may as well engage it in the hope that somehow with an informed and united citizenry this new experiment will finally bring us to the promised land, as it were.

Which is why it is incumbent upon all of us but most especially the parties who negotiated this Framework Agreement (FA) to now bring the entire discussions and the processes involved up to the plebiscite ratifying the basic law creating the new entity called Bangsamoro to the light of day.

Let us begin with some of the more obvious concerns emanating from the FA as signed. A number of legal experts have voiced alarm over the “missing annexes” underlying the basic principles contained in the signed framework. Former UP College of Law Dean Raul Pangalangan, for example, asked where were the “Annexes on Power Sharing, Wealth Sharing and Transitional Arrangements,” to name just three of the more critical ones, since it is advised that the same were declared as forming part of the said agreement. What do these annexes contain?

If the same are to be the subject of further discussions then why did the framers not advise that that was so? What kept them from being forthright about it? Is it possible the framers were undertime or other pressure to come out with the agreement in the manner it was done which prevented them from coming out with the annexes as is usually expected of agreements of this nature? If so, they should at least give us an idea what pressures were applied so the nation will know how to handle these the moment the entire agreement is fleshed out and the basic law drafted for consideration by Congress.

Another foremost legal mind, 1987 Constitutional Commission member and former Ateneo de Manila Law Dean Joaquin Bernas, brought out the problem of vagueness of some key provisions of the agreement which may open it immediately to a constitutional challenge. He noted the use of the term “asymmetrical,” that is, irregular, i.e., “contrary to rule or accepted order or general practice’’ or lopsided,  i.e.,  “having one side lower or smaller or lighter than the other” in describing the relationship between the national government and the Bangsamoro. What did the parties really mean when they used this term instead of say, subordinate, which is how local government units relate with the central government or even associative which is how the relationship was described in the Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain negotiated by the Moro Islamic Liberation Front with the previous administration. At least, these two terms would have given everybody a clearer idea of how the Bangsamoro would fit in our present form of government.

Bernas also echoed an earlier observation of another legal eagle, former Justice Secretary and Solicitor General Estelito Mendoza, who said the Framework Agreement only vaguely referred to the 1987 Constitution as the overriding guide in its formulation and eventual implementation. Mendoza noted that the Constitution was only mentioned in passing and not even with the kind of clear and direct injunction for it to be governed by the processes provided for therein. Bernas noted, for example, that the “provisions of the basic law shall be consistent with all agreements of the parties” without even advising that the same shall always be subject to the “constitutional processes” provided under the 1987  Constitution.

Were the parties concerned that the documents they will present for ratification in the event the same passes muster in the next Congress will not be able to hurdle the constitutional challenge which will surely ensue? Or were they as assured as former Dean Marvic Leonen was when he insisted that the panels will make sure that the Bangsamoro basic law will not violate any provisions of the 1987 Constitution at all?

That as far as this agreement is concerned there was no need to amend any provision of the Constitution as the same can be applied flexibly as and when needed? If so, then good luck to them. Which is why the clear fleshing out of the basic provisions, proper education and informed discussion should accompany the, for want of a better term, drumbeating for this new arrangement from hereon.

Indeed, while we are as hopeful as most of our people are about the prospects for peace in Mindanao with this new agreement we are as aware as P-Noy and his crew are that the road to a “just and lasting peace” remains rocky and hard. It will take more sweat and maybe tears but hopefully no more blood to make that elusive dream come true. Prayers and faith in the goodness of each and every Filipino will, of course, be most critical as we move on. Let that journey begin.

etulfo2011@yahoo.com

Here we go . . .
ERWIN TULFO

EVEN before the signing of the framework agreement for the final peace agreement between the government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) in Malacañang last week, Mindanaoans were pessimistic that a lasting peace in the area would be made within reach.

Residents of Mindanao, both Christians and Muslims, know that so long as there are armed groups in the mountains like the MILF breakaway group, the Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Fighters (BIFF) under Commander Umbra Kato, peace is unattainable. 

And just a few days ago, Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) Chairman Nur Misuari told his followers in a gathering in Davao City that armed struggle remained as their option if the agreement between the GPH and the MILF continues while the original peace agreement with the MNLF signed in 1996 has not been properly implemented by the government. 

Kato and his band of fighters seek a totally separate state that is independent from the government of the Philippines, while Misuari feels that the agreement which created the Bangsamore entity is a violation of the 1976 Tripoli agreement and directly contradicts the creation of the Autonomous Region for Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) in 1996. 

However, former MILF spokesman Eid Kabalu in a radio interview downplayed the threats of the MNLF and the MILF’s former colleagues, the BIFF members. 

Kabalu said that there is still a lot of time and a lot of work to be done before the peace agreement taken effect. He said the MILF leadership will include the other parties such as Nur and Kato’s group in the Bangsamoro entity. 

But what if the former Tausog fighter and the MILF renegade commander refuse the MILF’s offer? Definitely, it’s back to square one . . . war in Mindanao. 

The AFP chief of staff immediately vowed to crush the MNLF rebellion or any other armed struggle in Mindanao that do not agree with the said peace agreement. 

General Dellosa sounded like a boring standup comedian when he made that statement. He probably forgot that several presidents already have passed and thousands of soldiers have been killed, yet rebellion in Mindanao is still prevalent. The AFP cannot even suppress the Abu Sayyaf, a rebel and terrorist group associated with Jemaah Islamiyah and al-Qaeda. 

War in Mindanao, General Dellosa, is some Mindanaoans’ way of life, sir, (just in case you do not know or haven’t been there).

COMMONSENSE

A Gaddafi-less Misuari 

By Marichu A. Villanueva

Once known as one of the world’s most controversial and colorful authoritarian rulers, erstwhile President of Libya Muammar Gaddafi met his bloody end on Oct. 20 last year. Gaddafi led for more than 42 years one of Africa’s biggest oil producing countries.

When rebels toppled and killed Gaddafi, they brought an end to his leadership that was much hated also by the West for what they decried as a reign of terror in Libya. Recognized for his fashion sense of wearing bright colors, long, flowing robes and flashy sunglasses, Gaddafi’s hold on power began to disintegrate in February last year when the so-called Arab Spring-style protests erupted in the eastern city of Benghazi.

Gaddafi security forces met the protesters with violence, leading civilians to take up arms and form a rebel army. The rebels battled Gaddafi’s well-armed forces for months before finally taking Tripoli, their country’s capital city, with the help of air strikes from the United States and its allies from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). It was in Sirte, Gaddafi’s hometown, where the flamboyant Libyan leader made his final stand, before the city fell to rebel forces that ended his strongman regime.

Libya took a major step toward democracy in July this year with the holding of its first free election for their country’s first-ever general national congress (GNC). Wire reports have it that Prime Minister-elect Ali Zeidan is still trying to form a broadly acceptable cabinet.

While most Libyans reportedly remain delighted that Gaddafi has gone and many voice cautious optimism about their country’s prospects, deadly chaos still dogs this North African nation. A year after they toppled Gaddafi, internal strife continues to haunt Libya where militias still call the shots, literally with their high-powered weapons. Gaddafi loyalists are accused of trying to destabilize their nation’s journey to democracy.

The present situation in Libya took a turn for the worse with the armed attack last month on the US consulate in the eastern city of Benghazi where US ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed. This incident highlighted the fragility of the Libyan state as it struggles to emerge from the legacy of Gaddafi’s tyrant rule.

With Gaddafi totally out of the picture, Nur Misuari — founding chieftain of the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) — has lost his most ardent supporter among his Muslim brothers in the erstwhile Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC).

Gaddafi coddled and gave Misuari refuge for years as a young Muslim rebel from the Philippines who fled to Libya at the height of then President Ferdinand Marcos’ war against MNLF’s secessionists in Mindanao. With the blessings and full backing (and funding) by Gaddafi, Misuari was able to secure the 1976 Tripoli Agreement with the Marcos government. The Tripoli Agreement, among other things, called for the creation of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM).

While cooling his heels in Tripoli, Misuari was convinced to fly back to the Philippines after the 1986 EDSA People Power Revolution. The late President Corazon Aquino, who took over from Marcos, sent presidential brother-in-law Agapito Aquino to fetch Misuari from Tripoli and came back to resume MNLF’s formal peace talks with the Philippine government.

It was under the auspices of the OIC that Misuari’s MNLF entered into a formal peace agreement in September 1996. The OIC-backed peace pact, as brokered by Indonesia, however, left out the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) headed by Hashim Salamat who broke away from Misuari’s MNLF.

Fast forward. After years of negotiations and three administrations later, the shoe is now on the other foot. Misuari felt left out in the October 15 Framework Agreement signed by the government with the MILF for the establishment of a new autonomous political entity called Bangsamoro. Misuari insists the MNLF holds a permanent observer status by the OIC as the sole representative of Muslims in the Philippines.

President Benigno “Noy” Aquino III witnessed the signing of the Framework Agreement along with Prime Minister Najib Razak of Malaysia — which brokered the peace pact with the MILF — and OIC secretary-general Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu who flew all the way to Manila to support the new peace deal for Mindanao. Ihsanoglu had an hour-long private meeting with President Aquino afterwards at Malacañang.

Among other things, this Framework Agreement called for a basic law that a 15-man joint government-MILF panel will draft for Congress approval to establish a transitional Bangsamoro to replace the ARMM. And perhaps, the Bangsamoro entity will have expanded coverage of areas if ratified in a plebiscite.

Ihsanoglu proposed last week the holding of a tripartite meeting between the Philippine government, MNLF and the OIC to “find practical and implementable solutions for the remaining unresolved issues” in the Tripoli Agreement that Misuari claims were not fulfilled yet.

Misuari was unconvinced to work with the new government peace deal with the MILF. He rejected the unity talks offer by the OIC for both MNLF and the MILF to settle their differences. Instead, Misuari announced he plans to face the OIC leaders when they hold their regular meeting in Djibouti next month to present his formal complaints against the Philippine government’s non-compliance to its peace pact with the MNLF.

The 70-year old Misuari is obviously still counting on the OIC, now renamed as Organization of Islamic Cooperation, to give him the same support through these years. But without his brother Gaddafi backing him up, it would be difficult for the former MNLF chieftain to get fresh support.

As President Aquino described it, the ARMM — which Misuari headed for six years — has been a “failed experiment.” Misuari had been given a chance to make the peace deal in Mindanao work. But he bungled it. If he really desires peace for Mindanao, Misuari should give way to people who can try to make it succeed this time.

A Gaddafi-less Misuari no longer casts big, dark shadows on our own search for peace in southern Philippines.

Hope for development and peace in Mindanao
By KA IKING SEÑERES

I am a son of Mindanao. I was born in the land of the Bagobos, and I grew up in the land of the Lapaknon. You probably have not heard of the Lapaknons, but they are a sub-group of the Manobo tribe that has evolved into the modern day Butuanon people, already absorbed into the mainstream of Philippine society.

Long ago, I met Prince Omar Kiram, the historian of the Sultanate of Sulu, and I told him my story that the Tausugs had actually originated from Butuan, and one proof is that is the similarity of the languages of the two peoples, a fascinating reality because there is no other similar language across Mindanao, in between Sulu and Butuan. To my surprise, Prince Omar affirmed my story, and that immediately established very close links between us.

I was also surprised when Prince Omar also affirmed my other story that twice in pre-Hispanic history two Butuanon princesses were married to a Sultan Bolkiah from Sabah, hundreds of years apart from each other. Of course, the two namesake Bolkiahs are probably the ancestors of their present day namesake Sultan of Sabah, and therefore it would not be farfetched to say that this living monarch is probably Butuanon by blood not just once, but twice! The plot thickens now, because the Sultan of Sabah has publicly acknowledged the Sultan of Sulu to be his royal cousin, a blood relationship that could be traced all the way back to Butuan!

I have taken the trouble to write these two lead paragraphs as my introduction to this column, to establish the fact that the indigenous peoples of Mindanao all have common roots, regardless of whether they are Lumad or Muslim. I should clarify the fact however that Lumad is neither a tribe nor a religion, and that Moslim is not a tribe either. There are many Lumad tribes, and there are many Muslim tribes as well. Some members of the Lumad tribes might have converted to Islam on their own, but that does not mean that their entire tribe is already Muslim.

As I see it, the socio-political divisions in Mindanao should not be drawn along religious lines, but along economic lines. The conflicts in Mindanao have never been because of religious reasons, but because of economic reasons. The Muslim tribes might say that they have been economically disadvantaged, but they do not have a monopoly of that problem either, because the Lumad tribes have also been disadvantaged, even if they have not taken up arms against the government. The Christians in Mindanao do not belong to any of the tribes, but many of them have been disadvantaged too, often by their own kind.

Going down to the bottom line, the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) resorted to military means in order to gain political power, presumably as a strategy to achieve their economic goals. It has always been said by many others that the goal in Mindanao is to achieve peace and development, but I say on the other hand that the proper goal should be the other way around, to achieve development first, as a precondition for lasting peace. It would be very easy to sign a political agreement that would declare peace, but what is really more important than that is the economic package that would guarantee the development component of the peace agreement.

Hong Kong is clearly part of China both politically and territorially, but being a Special Administrative Region (SAR), it is practically autonomous financially and economically, and so is Macau. There is no doubt that the residents of Hong Kong and Macau are definitely citizens of China and no one in these two regions are worried about that issue either, as long as they could go about their business of making money and keeping their economy healthy. It could actually be said that these two economies would suffer if China would intervene in what their economic life.

Assuming that the Bangsa Moro entity would be affirmed by the residents of the covered areas by way of a referendum, I would say that the best approach is to treat it like Hong Kong and Macau, in other words allowing it and helping it to become financially and economically autonomous. Of course, that would be easier said than done, but I am sure that the Philippine government will not be alone in doing that gargantuan task, seeing even now that many foreign governments and international organizations are just waiting to jump in to help, notably the Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC).

It may just sound like semantics, but I really believe that it is more logically correct to achieve development first, as a way of laying the groundwork for peace. There is actually nothing to debate about this, because there is still plenty of time to bring in a massive development package first before the referendum is conducted, as a gesture of good faith, if you want to call it that. Hopefully, the package will be bigger than the Marshall Plan, because the war in Mindanao lasted more than the war in Europe, and the damage in Mindanao could actually be bigger.

For feedback, email iseneres@yahoo.com or text             +639083159262 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting            +639083159262      end_of_the_skype_highlighting